D.C. began writing this work in Istanbul, continued after 1711 in Russia, and completed it in 1717. After D.C.’s death, his son Antioh Cantemir managed to get the first English translation of this work published during his embassy in Paris and London (London, 1734-35). French (Paris, 1743) and German (Hamburg, 1745) translations and the second English edition of the work (London, 1756) appeared in the years that followed. The first Romanian translation was published in 1876, and two Turkish editions appeared in 1979 and 1998. All of these translations of D.C.’s work were based on its original English translation.

Up until the publication of Joseph von Hammer’s studies, the translations of D.C.’s work into Western languages constituted the principal source of reference on Ottoman history, especially for European diplomats. Hammer criticized D.C. strongly and argued that he was extremely ignorant about Ottoman language and institutions. It turns out, however, that Hammer did not have access to an accurate translation of D.C.’s work. In 1984 Virgil Candea discovered and published an autograph copy of Historia at the Houghton Library of Harvard University. According to Candea, “the comparison of the original Latin text with its English translation published by N. Tindal in 1734-35 reveals an unexpected truth, that Tindal and all translators after him who used his rendition published an abridged version of the work.” Candea found that Tindal not only omitted certain passages from the original text but also made inappropriate changes and failed to provide the quotations in Arabic letters. D.C., on the contrary, transliterated Ottoman terms in both the Arabic and Latin alphabets. The unexpected discovery of Historia’s original copy in Latin to a certain extent compensates for the dearth of documents at the Prime Minister’s Archives in Istanbul. According to Andrei Pippidi, Historia was first written in Greek between 1118-22/1706-10, completed after 1126/1714 (the date of the last event mentioned is 1717), and translated into Latin.

According to D.C., the decline (decrementa) of the Ottoman state began immediately after the last significant Ottoman territorial gain, namely the annexation of Podolya as the result of the 1672 expedition of Qamaniçe (Kamianets-Podilsky). The defeat at Zenta, which D.C. witnessed, appears to have made a strong impression on the author. Marsigli (d. 1141/1730) and Montesquieu (d. 1168/1755) propagate D.C.’s concepts of incrementa and decrementa in their works.

The Harvard manuscript of Historia in Latin, which D.C. corrected himself, contain sections entitled Praefatio (p. 1-40), Incrementa (Libres I-II; p. 1-246), Decrementa (Lib. III; p. 247-530), Annotationes (ad Lib. I-II; p. 1-279) and Annotationes (ad Lib. III; p. 1-206). The 1064-page copy consists of a 579-page main text and a 485-page section including notes on Ottoman institutions and civilization. The chronological part of the work begins with Süleyman Şah (611/1214) and continues up to the year 1123/1711.

In the long preface (Praefatio) to his work D.C. compares the Muslim and Christian calendars (Hegira cum Aera Christiana comparata) and discusses the subject of the Turkish people and their name (De gente et nomine Turcarum). Following Hvace Sadeddin (d. 1007/1599), D.C. also traces the genealogy of the House of Os̱man back to Yafes, the son of Noah (Genealogia Prosapiae Aliothmanae).

While the first part of the work deals with the rise (Incrementa) of the Ottoman state, the second part focuses on its decline (Decrementa). The first part begins with Süleyman Şah and covers the period until the annexation of Podolya region from Poland as the result of the Qamaniçe expedition (1083/1672) during the reign of Mehmed IV (1058-98/1648-87). In this part, the titles are arranged chronologically according to the names of Ottoman rulers and include the nicknames of some of the sultans. For example, “Sultan Murad I. Chodavendikiar,” “Ildirim Baiezid,” “Mehemed Fatih,” “(I.) Selim, cognomento Javuz,” “Suleiman I., cognomine Canuni,” “Sultan Selim II. cognomento Mest” are six of his titles. Although it is generally accepted today that Bayezid I (791-804/1389-1402) was the first Ottoman ruler to use the title “Sultan” and Mehmed II (848-50/1444-46 and 855-886/1451-81) to call himself “Padişah,” D.C.’s use of both “Sultan” and “İmperator/Padişah” for Orhan Beg suggests that he was influenced by the official ideology of his time.

The second part of the work, entitled Decrementa Aulae Othmanicae, deals with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. It is arranged, like the first part, chronologically. This section covers the period between 1083-1123/1672-1711, which corresponds to the reigns of sultans from Mehmed IV to Ahmed III (1115-42/1703-30). Since the work was completed in Russia, the last pages are entitled “Petro I, the Ruler of the Russian-Greeks” (Petrus Primus, Russo-Graecorum Monarcha). This part of Historia, which relates the developments during D.C.’s lifetime, is of greater historical value because the author refers to both his own personal experiences and to the eyewitness accounts of his family and friends to describe both the region (Eastern and Central Europe) and the time period under discussion. For example, D.C. participated in the historically significant expeditions of Zenta (1108/1697) and Prut (1123/1711) and met with prominent Ottoman and European statesmen.

Despite chronological inadequacies, the ‘Notes’ (Annotationes) are still valuable because they include important information about Ottoman civilization. Sections in which D.C. relates Ottoman realities he witnessed are the liveliest parts of the work. He includes colorful and interesting stories and his personal observations and opinions. In Historia, D.C. goes beyond simply relating the events and includes a social, economic and cultural evaluation. He reveals the reasons behind and connections between the events he describes.

D.C. only referred to a limited number of written sources and did not record his citations correctly. Perhaps the former voivode of Bogdan wrote the work during his hurried escape to Russia after the Battle of Prut without the help of the first version of Historia or other documents. Later the prince complained about the lack of good libraries in Russia. Lack of access to Ottoman texts may be the reason why D.C.’s Historia does not mention the name of Katib Çelebi (d. 1067/1657), one of the most famous authors of the 17th century.

The work was composed in 1128/1716 at the request of the Berlin Academy, of which D.C. was a member since 1714. It focuses on relations between the Ottoman state and the Principality of Moldavia. This monograph was written in Latin and later published in German (1769-70 and 1771), in Russian (1789), and in Romanian (1825). The detailed and accurate map of the Principality of Moldavia, which he also included, was later published separately for the first time in 1745 in Amsterdam.

The work consists of 3 parts: 1. Geography, 2. Politics, 3. Religion and Education. D.C. displays competency in geography, linguistics, and sociology throughout this volume. Especially important for Ottomanists are the 2nd (the election of voivodes of Bogdan), 4th (the yearly or three-yearly approval of ruling voivodes), 13th (Bogdan’s former and current incomes), and 14th (the tributes and offerings paid by Bogdan to the Sublime Porte) sections of Part II. In other sections D.C. focuses on the autonomy of the principality and Ottoman-Romanian commercial relations.

In this work D.C. relates the life of his father and his struggle against his rival Constantin Brancoveanu (d. 1126/1714), the voivode of Wallachia. Composed in Latin and completed between 1714-1716, the Vita was first published (in Russian) in 1783.

After completing Descriptio Moldaviae, D.C. worked from 1717 until his death on a comprehensive work in Romanian entitled Hronicul vechimii a Romano-Moldo-Vlachilor (The History of the Antiquity of Romanians). It treats the Latin origins of the Romanian people and the continuity of their settlement in the Carpathian-Danube-Black Sea region. Although D.C. was not able to complete this work, two complete volumes were published in 1835-36. The critical edition of two drafts in Latin, entitled De antiquis et hodernis Moldaviae nominibus ve Historia Moldo-Vlachica, were also published in Bucharest in 1983.

D.C. is known to have planned a work on the administration and institutions of the Ottoman state entitled De regimine othomanidum politico or De regimine Othmani imperii, which would have included sections entitled “De disciplina othomanidum civili ac morali,” “De moribus ac indole huius gentis,” and “De disciplina eorum militari”. Another less known work by D.C. on Ottoman civilization and religious life is Kniga sistima ili sostoyaniye muhammedanskiya religii, which was published in Russian in St. Petersburg in 1722. In this work D.C. treats topics like Turco-Muslim calligraphy, the superiority of dervishes to Christian monks, the beauty of the language of the Quran, and the prohibition of forced conversion in Islam. The Ottoman history entitled Historia incrementarum atque decrementarum Aulae Othomanicae, the work on Muslim doctrine entitled Kniga sistima and the book on Ottoman administration entitled De regimine Othmani Imperii were probably conceived of as a trilogy by D.C. In conclusion we would like to recognize D.C.’s personal contribution to Ottoman civilization as a noted musician.